DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 10/29/2025, are accepted and do not introduce new matter.
Claims 1 and 3-19 are pending; claims 5-11, 13-14 and 19 are withdrawn; claim 2 was cancelled; claims 1, 3, 4, 12 and 15-18 are examined hereafter.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “The chamber 100 also comprises means for creating, within the chamber, an entrainment of the wool in one sense in a direction A and in the opposite sense in a direction B opposite to the direction A such that, within the chamber, there is at least one plane perpendicular to the direction A, where the wool entrained in the direction A crosses the wool entrained in the opposite sense in the direction B.” as disclosed in Page 5 paragraph 1 of Applicant’s specification must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that the drawings fail to show the “means for creating… an entrainment of wool” and they fail to label “direction A” and “direction B”. Drawing amendments should be made to show these features. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a system configured to generate a turbulent gas flow” in claim 1. This limitation invokes 112(f) because it meets the three-prong test: 1) it uses a generic placeholder “system”; 2) it is modified by functional language: generate a turbulent gas flow; and 3) it is not modified by any structure in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification does not disclose any structure as to what the system configured to generate a turbulent gas flow encompasses. As such, this is rejected under 112(b) for being indefinite. See rejection below.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device adapted to position the shutter” in claim 1. This limitation invokes 112(f) because it meets the three-prong test: 1) it uses a generic placeholder “device”; 2) it is modified by functional language: positions the shutter; and 3) it is not modified by any structure in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification discloses the device adapted to position the shutter as holes in the face of the chamber and studs on the shutter, or a rail system on the chamber and shutter. Examiner will interpret the device as such, or equivalent thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do use the word “means,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for creating within said chamber a drive of said wool in the form of nodules or flakes in two opposite directions” in claim 1. This limitation invokes 112(f) because it meets the three-prong test: 1) it uses a generic placeholder “means”; 2) it is modified by functional language: create within said chamber a drive of said wool; and 3) it is not modified by any structure in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification does not disclose any structure as to what the system configured to generate a turbulent gas flow encompasses. As such, this is rejected under 112(b) for being indefinite. See rejection below.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a system configured to generate a gas stream” in claim 17. This limitation invokes 112(f) because it meets the three-prong test: 1) it uses a generic placeholder “system”; 2) it is modified by functional language: generate a gas stream; and 3) it is not modified by any structure in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification does not disclose any structure as to what the system configured to generate a gas stream encompasses. As such, this is rejected under 112(b) for being indefinite. See rejection below.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 discloses the limitation of “a system configured to generate a turbulent gas flow”. This has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the specification is silent with respect to any structural features of the system in question. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Examiner notes that the specification is silent with respect to any actual structure that might encompass the “system” in question. For this reason, this limitation is indefinite; as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation are.
Claims 1 discloses the limitation of “means for creating within said chamber a drive of said wool in the form of modules or flakes in two opposite direction”. This has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the specification is silent with respect to any structural features of the system in question. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Examiner notes that the specification is silent with respect to any actual structure that might encompass the “means” in question. For this reason, this limitation is indefinite; as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation are.
Claims 3, 4, 12, 15-18 are indefinite for depending on claim 1.
Claim 17 discloses the limitation of “a system configured to generate a gas stream”. This has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the specification is silent with respect to any structural features of the system in question. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Examiner notes that the specification is silent with respect to any actual structure that might encompass the “system” in question. For this reason, this limitation is indefinite; as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation are.
Claim 18 is indefinite for depending on claim 17.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether these limitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 15-18 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (U.S. 2015/0283577) in view of Wang (U.S. 2008/0128420).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Zhang teaches a device for preparing an insulation product based on wool (as disclosed in abstract and Par 0018), comprising a chamber (defined by component 30, seen in Fig 2a-b) comprising an inlet opening (inlet opening of 5 in which hose 6 is connected to) through which a stream of carrier gas and a wool in the form of nodules or flakes are introduced (insulation particles suspended in air, i.e. carrier gas, is introduced at inlet through the hose 6, see Par 0029 and 0031; Par 0018 discloses the particles as wool fibers; Furthermore, Examiner notes that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, as determined in MPEP 2115; therefore, the type of material the device uses does not carry patentable weight over the claimed apparatus and the apparatus of Zhang is deemed capable of working with wool nodules or flakes), at least one system configured to generate a turbulent gas flow in said chamber (as best understood, as disclosed in Par 0036, turbulent air flow generated and sent to the chamber 30, note that 30 is part of 5, as seen in Figs 2a-b) with means for creating within said chamber a drive of said wool in the form of nodules or flakes (as best understood, the means to create a drive are defined by blower 4 and pump 22, seen in Fig 1, which push the nodules/flakes out of nozzle 5) in two opposite directions (as shown below, the nodules/flakes are dispensed in two opposite directions A and B), and an outlet opening (exit port 38) through which flakes mixed with an outlet gas stream are expelled (as disclosed in Par 0034, exit port dispenses a mixture of air, i.e. an outlet gas, and particles).
PNG
media_image1.png
419
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Zhang does not teach the device comprising a system for adjusting the outlet opening to control an area of the outlet opening from 0 to 100%, said system for adjusting the outlet opening thus making adjustment of a surface area of the outlet opening possible so that the surface area of the outlet opening is greater than, equal to, or less than a surface area of the inlet opening, and wherein the system for adjusting the outlet opening comprises at least one shutter arranged on an external part of a face of the chamber and a device adapted to position the at least one shutter.
Wang teaches a system (seen in Fig 1) for adjusting the outlet opening (12) of a chamber (1) to control an area of the outlet opening from 0 to 100% (as can be seen in the figures, the shutter 2 can cover the entirety of the outlet opening and can be slid all the away to the side to open the entirety of the outlet opening), said system for adjusting the outlet opening thus making adjustment of a surface area of the outlet opening possible so that the surface area of the outlet opening is greater than, equal to, or less than a surface area of the inlet opening (the outlet opening 12 has a surface area that is less than the surface area of the inlet when the cover body 2 is partially covering the outlet), and wherein the system for adjusting the outlet opening comprises at least one shutter (2) arranged on an external part of a face (face on opening side 11) of the chamber (see Fig 1) and a device adapted to position the at least one shutter (device defined by portions 131 and 22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Wang to provide a system for adjusting the outlet opening of the chamber in order to control the size of the opening in a stepwise fashion (as disclosed in Par 0005 of Wang), which would provide controlled dispensing of the material expelled by the device of Zhang depending on the needs of the task at hand. In combination, Zhang and Wang teach the limitation of “said system for adjusting the outlet opening thus making adjustment of a surface area of the outlet opening possible so that the surface area of the outlet opening is greater than, equal to, or less than a surface area of the inlet opening” since the outlet of Zhang is now modified to be open from 0 to 100%. When the outlet is fully open, its surface area will be greater than that of the inlet (see Fig 2b of Zhang, which shows the outlet being bigger than the inlet); and when the outlet is nearly fully close, its surface area will be less than that of the inlet; thus reading on claim language.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang and Wang teach the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device adapted to position the at least one shutter comprises a plurality of blind holes (blind holes 14, seen in Fig 1 of Wang) arranged, on said face of the chamber (14 are arranged on the side of the face of the chamber 1), in at least one line (14 are arranged in a line, see Fig 1) and at least one pair of studs (studs defined on portion 21, see Fig 2) arranged on said shutter (21 is arranged on shutter 2) in order to fit in two blind holes (each pair of studs on the shutter 2 fits into the pair of holes 14, as seen Fig 1-2 and 7 of Wang).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang and Wang teach the device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the plurality of blind holes are arranged in two parallel lines (holes 14 are arranged on two parallel lines on each side of the shutter 2, as seen in Fig 1 and 2 of Wang), said at least one shutter comprising at least two pairs of studs arranged such that each stud of a pair fits into a hole in a different line (as seen in Fig 1 of Wang, the studs of portion 21 are arranged as pairs that are defined such that they correspond to two holes 14 on different parallel lines).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang and Wang teach the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the chamber comprises an inlet face (shown below) for the inlet opening, an outlet face (shown below) for the outlet opening, two side faces (shown below), an upper face (shown below) and a lower face (shown below), said system for adjusting the outlet opening being arranged on the outlet face (in combination with Wang, the system for adjusting the opening is arranged on the outlet face).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang and Wang teach the device as claimed in claim 1. However, they do not explicitly teach the chamber having a volume of between 5 and 90 dm3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable volume for the chamber, including between 5 and 90 dm3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Zhang and Wang disclose all the general structure of the claim. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable volume of the chamber. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the volume be between 5 and 90 dm3 - see page 4 line 3 and page 6 line 17 of Applicant’s specification. Therefore, it would be obvious to find the ideal volume of the chambers to meet any desired capacity characteristics, based on intended use.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang and Wang teach the device as claimed in claim 12, wherein the chamber is such that at least the area of the inlet opening differs from the area of the inlet face (as shown in the annotated figure below)
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Zhang and Wang teach a spray insulation system (1 of Zhang), comprising a system configured to generate a gas stream (defined by blower 4, which generates a forced air flow, seen in Fig 1 of Zhang) connected to the device for preparing an insulation product based on mineral wool or on cellulose as claimed in claim 1 (blower 4 connects to device for preparing insulation product defined by 6 and 5, see Fig 1 of Zhang), said system configured to generate a gas stream being able to supply a gas stream in which flakes of wool are mixed (particles of wool stored in hopper 2 are mixed with air from the blower and dispensed from the nozzle 5, see Par 0029-31 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Zhang and Wang teach the spray insulation system as claimed in claim 17, wherein a material of the insulation product has one of the densities of around 5 to 15 kg/m3 for products based on glass wool and of around 15 to 50 kg/m3 for products based on rock wool (Examiner notes that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, as determined in MPEP 2115; therefore, the type of material and details of the material that the device uses does not carry patentable weight over the claimed apparatus. Therefore, the apparatus of Zhang is deemed capable of working with the material claimed).
Annotated Figure of Zhang:
PNG
media_image2.png
330
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 12, 15-18 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (U.S. 2015/0283577) in view of Beaufils et al (U.S. 2015/0152001).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Zhang teaches a device for preparing an insulation product based on wool (as disclosed in abstract and Par 0018), comprising a chamber (defined by component 30, seen in Fig 2a-b) comprising an inlet opening (inlet opening of 5 in which hose 6 is connected to) through which a stream of carrier gas and a wool in the form of nodules or flakes are introduced (insulation particles suspended in air, i.e. carrier gas, is introduced at inlet through the hose 6, see Par 0029 and 0031; Par 0018 discloses the particles as wool fibers; Furthermore, Examiner notes that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, as determined in MPEP 2115; therefore, the type of material the device uses does not carry patentable weight over the claimed apparatus and the apparatus of Zhang is deemed capable of working with wool nodules or flakes), at least one system configured to generate a turbulent gas flow in said chamber (as best understood, as disclosed in Par 0036, turbulent air flow generated and sent to the chamber 30, note that 30 is part of 5, as seen in Figs 2a-b), with means for creating within said chamber a drive of said wool in the form of nodules or flakes (as best understood, the means to create a drive are defined by blower 4 and pump 22, seen in Fig 1, which push the nodules/flakes out of nozzle 5) in two opposite directions (as shown below, the nodules/flakes are dispensed in two opposite directions A and B), and an outlet opening (exit port 38) through which flakes mixed with an outlet gas stream are expelled (as disclosed in Par 0034, exit port dispenses a mixture of air, i.e. an outlet gas, and particles).
PNG
media_image1.png
419
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Zhang does not teach the device comprising a system for adjusting the outlet opening to control an area of the outlet opening from 0 to 100%, said system for adjusting the outlet opening thus making adjustment of a surface area of the outlet opening possible so that the surface area of the outlet opening is greater than, equal to, or less than a surface area of the inlet opening, and wherein the system for adjusting the outlet opening comprises at least one shutter arranged on an external part of a face of the chamber and a device adapted to position the at least one shutter.
Beaufils teaches a system for adjusting an outlet opening (2) to control an area of the outlet opening from 0 to 100% (as disclosed in Par 0040, the system goes from “completely open” to “completely closed” outlet), said system for adjusting the outlet opening thus making adjustment of a surface area of the outlet opening possible so that the surface area of the outlet opening is greater than, equal to, or less than a surface area of the inlet opening (the outlet opening 2 has a surface area that is less than the surface area of the inlet, as seen in the figures), wherein the system for adjusting the outlet opening comprises at least one shutter (3) arranged on an external part of a face of a chamber (shutter 3 is on the outside of chamber 1) and a device adapted to position the at least one shutter (movable shuttering means disclosed at lease in Pars 0005, 00014 and 0015).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Beaufils to provide a system for adjusting the outlet opening in order to adjust the outlet opening size depending on the viscosity of the fluid being dispensed (as disclosed in the abstract of Beaufils). This would add versatility to the device of Zhang so that many types of insulation mixes can be adequately dispensed. In combination, Zhang and Beaufils teach the limitation of “said system for adjusting the outlet opening thus making adjustment of a surface area of the outlet opening possible so that the surface area of the outlet opening is greater than, equal to, or less than a surface area of the inlet opening” since the outlet of Zhang is now modified to be open from 0 to 100%. When the outlet is fully open, its surface area will be greater than that of the inlet (see Fig 2b of Zhang, which shows the outlet being bigger than the inlet); and when the outlet is nearly fully close, its surface area will be less than that of the inlet; thus reading on claim language.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang and Beaufils teach the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the chamber comprises an inlet face (shown below) for the inlet opening, an outlet face (shown below) for the outlet opening, two side faces (shown below), an upper face (shown below) and a lower face (shown below), said system for adjusting the outlet opening being arranged on the outlet face (in combination with Beaufils, the system for adjusting the opening is arranged on the outlet face).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang and Beaufils teach the device as claimed in claim 1. However, they do not explicitly teach the chamber having a volume of between 5 and 90 dm3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable volume for the chamber, including between 5 and 90 dm3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Zhang and Beaufils disclose all the general structure of the claim. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable volume of the chamber. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the volume be between 5 and 90 dm3 - see page 4 line 3 and page 6 line 17 of Applicant’s specification. Therefore, it would be obvious to find the ideal volume of the chambers to meet any desired capacity characteristics, based on intended use.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang and Beaufils teach the device as claimed in claim 12, wherein the chamber is such that at least the area of the inlet opening differs from the area of the inlet face (as shown in the annotated figure below)
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Zhang and Beaufils teach a spray insulation system (1 of Zhang), comprising a system configured to generate a gas stream (defined by blower 4, which generates a forced air flow, seen in Fig 1 of Zhang) connected to the device for preparing an insulation product based on mineral wool or on cellulose as claimed in claim 1 (blower 4 connects to device for preparing insulation product defined by 6 and 5, see Fig 1 of Zhang), said system configured to generate a gas stream being able to supply a gas stream in which flakes of wool are mixed (particles of wool stored in hopper 2 are mixed with air from the blower and dispensed from the nozzle 5, see Par 0029-31 of Zhang).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Zhang and Beaufils teach the spray insulation system as claimed in claim 17, wherein a material of the insulation product has one of the densities of around 5 to 15 kg/m3 for products based on glass wool and of around 15 to 50 kg/m3 for products based on rock wool (Examiner notes that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, as determined in MPEP 2115; therefore, the type of material and details of the material that the device uses does not carry patentable weight over the claimed apparatus. Therefore, the apparatus of Zhang is deemed capable of working with the material claimed).
Annotated Figure of Zhang:
PNG
media_image2.png
330
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments against the 112(b) rejections of claim 1 and 17 are not persuasive. These claims were rejected under 112(b) because they disclose terms that invoke 112(f) whilst the specification does not provide any actual physical structure as to what these terms may encompass. In other words, the “system configured to generate a turbulent gas flow”, “means for creating within said chamber a drive of said wool in the form of modules or flakes in two opposite direction” and “system configured to generate a gas stream” all lack any structure in the specification. As such, it is unknown what these limitations are actually claiming. Examiner asserts that only functional language is attached to these limitations, which is not enough to define them. In their arguments, Applicant cites page 5 of the description to allege that the terms are well defined. Page 5 reads: "[t]he chamber 100 also comprises means for creating, within the chamber, an entrainment of the wool in one sense in a direction A and in the opposite sense in a direction B opposite to the direction A (..) [which] depend, for example, on the shape and the size of the chamber." Examiner notes that there is not structure disclosed here or anywhere else in the specification that informs one of ordinary skill in the art what structure these limitations encompass. Examiner also notes that “means” is not a structural features and in fact is a placeholder that invokes 112(f), as stated above. Previous 112(b) rejections are maintained.
Response to arguments regarding prior art rejections of Zhang in view of Wang:
Applicant argues that Zhang does not show any means for making the flow of the chamber turbulent. Applicant states that although Par 0036 discloses turbulence generated by the air, Zhang intends to avoid turbulence by the introduction of water. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the claimed “system configured to generate a turbulent gas flow” has been deemed indefinite under 112(b), because it lacks any actual structure in the claim and the specification. That is, it is unclear what structure the system encompasses that is in charge of generating a turbulent gas flow. As such, Examiner as best understood, has interpreted Zhang to read on this limitation. In fact, Zhang discloses verbatim that the device generates a turbulent air flow; air being a gas. The fact that Zhang aims to decrease the turbulence with water is irrelevant. The claim merely discloses a turbulent gas flow and Zhang discloses a turbulent air flow; the claim does not specify that the turbulent flow exits the chamber, for example. Even if the turbulent air flow is then diminished, turbulence occurs in their device for at least an instant. Thus, reading on claim language. Examiner notes that actual structure has to be claimed that differentiates the art from the invention; functional language does not carry enough patentable weight in this case in order to read away from Zhang. This claim limitation is broadly claimed and should be narrowed much more.
Applicant argues that Wang does not address the lack of turbulent gas flow of Zhang. Examiner notes that as explained above, Zhang discloses this limitation. As such, Wang does not need to disclose it. Examiner also notes that Wang was not relied upon in the rejection for this particular teaching. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wang does not disclose an inlet opening distinct from the outlet opening. Examiner notes that this is non-commensurate with the rejection, as Examiner has not relied on Wang for the teaching of an inlet. The inlet is taught by the main art Zhang. Wang is only used to modify the outlet of Zhang. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, reads away from Zhang in view of Wang, because it now discloses that the surface area of the outlet opening is modified as a function of the surface area of the inlet. Examiner notes that the newly added limitation states “said system for adjusting the outlet opening thus making adjustment of a surface area of the outlet opening possible so that the surface area of the outlet opening is greater than, equal to, or less than a surface area of the inlet opening”. And the combination of Zhang and Wang reads on this since the outlet of Zhang is now modified to be open from 0 to 100%. That is, when the outlet is fully open, its surface area will be greater than that of the inlet (see Fig 2b of Zhang, which shows the outlet being bigger than the inlet); and when the outlet is nearly fully close, its surface area will be less than that of the inlet; thus reading on claim language.
Regarding the rejection of claim 15, Applicant states that the case law In re Aller is insufficiently similar to the instant application, and that as such, finding the ideal chamber volume is not an obvious matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the parameters that were deemed obvious in the court decision in In re Aller (temperature the process was performed at and acid concentration percentage) are not the same as the instant application, the court’s conclusion still applies to this application. Specifically the court found that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case Zhang discloses a chamber, as disclosed by the claims. Therefore, working out the size of the chamber would be an obvious matter that requires routine experimentation. That is, depending on the intended setting and capacity desired by the device of Zhang, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the ideal size of chamber. Thus, making this an obvious feature. Furthermore, Examiner points to Applicant’s specification (page 4 line 3 and page 6 line 17), which lacks any criticality for the claimed range of 5 to 90 dm3.
Response to arguments regarding prior art rejections of Zhang in view of Beaufils:
Applicant argues that Beaufils does not address the lack of turbulent gas flow of Zhang. Examiner notes that as explained above, Zhang discloses this limitation. As such, Beaufils does not need to disclose it. Examiner also notes that Beaufils was not relied upon in the rejection for this particular teaching. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, reads away from Zhang in view of Beaufils, because it now discloses “said system for adjusting the outlet opening thus making adjustment of a surface area of the outlet opening possible so that the surface area of the outlet opening is greater than, equal to, or less than a surface area of the inlet opening”. Examiner notes that just like the combination of Zhang and Wang, the combination of Zhang and Beaufils reads on this limitation since the outlet of Zhang is now modified to be open from 0 to 100%. That is, when the outlet is fully open, its surface area will be greater than that of the inlet (see Fig 2b of Zhang, which shows the outlet being bigger than the inlet); and when the outlet is nearly fully close, its surface area will be less than that of the inlet; thus reading on claim language. This is because the outlet as modified by Beaufils allows is to go from completely open to completely closed, as such this capability reads on the claim language.
For these reasons, Examiner maintains the current grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752